Hillary panders to AIPAC and the military-industrial complex.  Always has.  Her “obliterate them” remark is a disappointment but certainly not a surprise.  It is in line with her earlier “no options are off the table” remark which, as Sen Gravel duly noted, are code words for a nuclear first strike.

While I think Obama is probably the best of the remaining candidates to bring an end to the imperial folly in Iraq, we lost a golden opportunity to nominate a man who is truly committed to peace and a mature non-violent foreign policy--Dennis Kucinich.  That opportunity ended when MSNBC, whose parent company, GE, a contributor to the campaigns of Clinton, Obama & Edwards, excluded Kucinich from a major debate, and with good reason--Kucinich speaks truth to power.

As noted by Dr. Helen Caldicott, “Raytheon [a GE subsidiary] is involved in 4000 different weapons programs.  It provided the Tomahawk missile at a cost of 600,000 dollars each for the 2003 Iraqi invasion.  At 1,000,000 dollars each, their AIM-65 Maverick air-to-surface missile is...the most widely used precision-guided munition in the free world....Raytheon specializes in radar, surveillance, and targeting systems used extensively in most U.S.-produced combat aircraft.  It makes the 5000 pound ‘bunker buster’...most notoriously used in efforts to ‘neutralize’ Osama Bin Laden in the underground caves...and the TOW, Maverick, and Javelin missiles, which were all used in Afghanistan....Because they benefit so inordinately from belligerent U.S. policy, firms like Lockheed Martin, Boeing and Raytheon cultivate ties to the administration that ensure the orders for new weapons keep flowing.  They essentially lobby for war, perpetually.”

To that I would add, that with the Orwellian “war on terror” what they got was perpetual war against a phantom menace who is everywhere and anywhere at all times.  As noted by Naomi Klein, that is the business prospectus that the Bush regime put to corporate America after 9/11, and I have seen nothing in Clinton’s fear-mongering statements and attack ads that suggests any of that would change if Hillary were elected.

Not only does the U.S. spend more on weaponry than the rest of the world combined, but it is in the process of developing new generations of nuclear weapons, has rejected a joint Russian/Chinese proposal to prevent expansion of the arms race into the space dimension, and had no problem with nuclear proliferation to favored nations like Israel and India.  Even if it were limited to defensive purposes, “Star Wars” is but a trillion dollar boondoggle given that the principle threat is no longer a Russian ICBM but rather a suitcase-sized dirty bomb brought in through one of our under-guarded ports.

But Star Wars entails offense.  It includes both sophisticated space-based surveillance that would permit world-wide, pinpoint tracking and targeting together with an array of weaponry which, per a 1996 air force board report entail “new technologies [that] will allow the fielding of space-based weapons of devastating effectiveness....These advances will enable lasers with reasonable mass and cost to effect many kills.  This can be done rapidly, continuously and with surgical precision....Force application by kinetic kill weapons will enable pinpoint strikes anywhere in the world.” The U.S. Space Command’s “Vision for 2020” expresses the avowed purpose to dominate “the space dimension of military operations to protect US interests and investment,” something that prompted Richard Falk to observe:  “The empire-building quest for such awesome power is an unprecedented exhibition of geopolitical greed at its worst, and needs to be exposed and abandoned before it is too late.”

There is one nation that stands out as a threat to the very survival of life on this planet, and that nation is not Iran.  It is the good old US of A.

Thank you Ernest Canning for speaking truth to power.
http://www.streetalker.com/

Sepharad, the endorsements of the Kennedys has much importance as Obama being endorsed by Oprah. The politics of celebrity, even political celebrity, is the real politics of nonsense. As far as JFK and FDR are concerned, this intuitive grasp of politics as you call it, are the workings of two men who came from wealthy privileged backgrounds. Barack Obama’s mother was a nice white girl from Kansas, as you say, but she certainly wasn’t rich. As far as Paul Krugman is concerned, he is too far in the tank for his gal from New York.

The last sentence should read: “the rest of the world combined.”

Lee, Iran is no threat to us. But we certainly have been a threat to them. Read A People’s History of The United States and discover how we installed the Shah. Secondly, Amadinajad is the president of Iran, but that is a ceremonial position. Iran is a Shia Muslim theocratic state, all true power is with the ruling clerics. So Amadinjad is a United States government manufactured boogie man.
As far as the “walk softly, but carry a big stick”, that comes from Theodore Roosevelt, one of the most brutal extenders of American empire, who once said: “All the great masterful races have been fighting races...No triumph of peace is quite so great as the supreme triumph of war.”
That was said by TR, in 1893 at the Naval War College. I guess some would see that as a late 19th century version of the “straight talk express”.
So it is not naive to question falsehoods. Falsehoods that enable people to surrender their freedom, for the benefit of a wealthy few who have designs on resources that do not belong to them.
The notion that foreign leaders are committed to the destruction of this country, seems rather an empty threat, when you consider that the United States spends more on weapons than the rest of the combined.

Not all drill is for rote learning and is not necessarily ‘drill and kill.’ If you have not alreasy read some of the books on how the braun learns. They are fascinating and enlightening.
From a webs ite called Audiblox:

“Teaching Myth: Repetition and Drill Dull Creativity
Repetition and drill have become swear words in education. Today this form of learning is considered to be “out of style,”1 “ghastly boring”2 and even “mindless.”3 Drill-and-practice, teachers are told, produces only rote memorization and dulls creativity.4 “Having to spend long periods of time on repetitive tasks is a sign that learning is not taking place — that this is not a productive learning situation,” says Bartoli.5

[.....]

In a major review of research on what teachers can do to influence student achievement, Brophy drew this conclusion on the relationship between drill and practice and creative performance:

Development of basic knowledge and skills to the necessary levels of automatic and errorless performance requires a great deal of drill and practice. . . . drill and practice activities should not be slighted as “low level.” Carried out properly, they appear to be just as essential to complex and creative intellectual performance as they are to the performance of a virtuoso violinist.10

As Heward points out, drill and practice can be conducted in ways that render it pointless and a waste of time. “Research has shown, however, that when properly conducted, drill and practice is a consistently effective teaching method. For example, a recent meta-analysis of 85 academic intervention studies with students with learning disabilities found that regardless of the practical or theoretical orientation of the study, the largest effect sizes were obtained by interventions that included systematic drill, repetition, practice, and review (Swanson & Sachse-Lee, 2000).”11

Research has also shown that repetition is important in the “wiring” of a person’s brain, i.e. the forming of connections or synapses between the brain cells. Without these connections, the brain cells are as useless as batteries standing in a row next to a flashlight. Only when the batteries and flashlight are connected, can they make a shining light.

The thing that wires a child’s brain, say neuroscientists — or rewires it after physical trauma — is “repeated experience.”12 Without such repeated experience, key synapses don’t form. And if such connections, once formed, are used too seldom to be strengthened and reinforced, the brain, figuring they’re dead weight, eventually “prunes” them away.13

Unless educators teach according to viable and universal learning principles, they cannot blame children of “learning disabilities.”

Not all students need to be exposed to something new “at least 10 times” to remember it, bert.  People need to be exposed to things repeatedly only when they don’t make any sense...hence advertising and propaganda and repeating a lie until it sounds like the truth.

Slow students need multiple exposures, but they’re slow.  But even slow students pick things up quickly if the teacher presents them in a way that makes sense to the student.  Particularly bright students often don’t even need a concept fully articulated before they understand/remember it.

A bad teacher has to repeat him/herself ten times to get students to remember.  A very good teacher doesn’t repeat, but varies the approach so that students with different learning methods get the information and students who already understand don’t get bored...and also learn how many different ways there are to approach anything.

You’re talking about learning by rote, and that is worthless compared to understanding something.  Repetitive teachers are what makes school so stupidly boring that students end up hating it.

And, yes, i have spent time in front of a classroom.

Never mind the foreign leaders, Lee, the current occupants of the White House are the ones who are committed to the destruction of our constitutional government and they appeal to “your” irrational fear of the villain of the month (now Amadinajad, before it was Saddam, tomorrow it will be Hugo Chavez) as justification to move this nation towards a fascist police state while they enrich themselves and their crony capitalist friends in the military-industrial complex, Halliburton, Blackwater and the other war profiteers.

You don’t have to scour the globe for non-existent Iraqi WMD or the non-existent Iranian nukes.  The real threat, the one who could wipe out all life on the planet at the push of a button, resides at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.

RE: Thebeerdoctor

Beerdoctor,

You say the essential quality the President must have is wisdom ... that is
true. The first obligation and duty the President must have is to protect the American people from both foreign and domestic threats. Past great Presidents
understood the wisdom of leading through strength. This is why concepts like
‘walk softly, but carry a big stick’ came about. This is the real world. American Presidents are constantly having to deal with foreign leaders who are committed to the destruction of this country. It would be terribly naive to think otherwise.
It would also be terribly naive to think that you could deal with leaders like Amadinajad by trying to be friends with him.

Re: Lefeller

Lefeller,

You are always going on and on about the evils or racism. Does your outrage only include racism towards Blacks ... or, does your outrage also include racism by Blacks?

http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/reverend-eric-lees-anti-s emitism-a-personal-story-video/

Bert, the most essential quality a president must have is wisdom. Senator Clinton’s “obliterate them” comment reveals a ruthless person whose allegiance to her constituency puts all of us in peril. As for her working with republicans, why not? she has always been one. Because she hitched her star to the Arkansas traveler, she had to switch political affiliations. That was the expedient thing to do.

Aegrus:  “Every since her senate run he Hillary has been running for president, instead of learning how to be a good president. It would be better, getting her hands dirty, she is creating big waves before maybe after her time and she is just an empty suit giving silly arguments.
Well Sue Cook you have really stated your case, can you explain what makes a good president, since it is your argument?”

One of Hillary’s toughest critics, Aegrus, and former adversaries, Sen. Lindsey Graham, the conservative South Carolina senator and a leader in her husband’s impeachment, worked together to expand health care benefits for our troops in the National Guard. In an article in Time two years ago, Sen. Graham said of Hillary:

“In the Senate, a small body of big egos, Senator Clinton, 58, is SOUGHT OUT by her colleagues to form legislative partnerships. Her high-profile status, combined with a reputation as a SMART, PREPARED, SERIOUS [caps mine] Senator, creates real influence.

In a short time, this blue-state Senator with a blue-state perspective has managed to build unusual political alliances on a variety of issues with Republicans Bill Frist, Sam Brownback, Elizabeth Dole, Rick Santorum and other conservatives.

As a red-state conservative, I have found common ground with her on improving health-care benefits for members of the National Guard and Reserve. We also created a bipartisan Manufacturing Caucus to help promote and address the problems facing America’s manufacturers.

Senator Clinton would be a formidable opponent for Republicans in November 2008 as the nation remains closely divided. Some say she cannot be elected President. I say those who underestimate Hillary Clinton do so at their own peril.”

Isn’t building,” unusual political alliances on a variety of issues with Republicans,” exactly what Obama says he WANTS to do if elected President – reach across the aisle and create a post partisan world. Hell, my friend, Hillary has already done it.

I can’t speak for Sue or TOV, but that is what I mean when I say Hillary has been learning how to be a good President. Hillary has earned votes through hard work and not just pretty words. Can you cite me a specific example, not just an endorsement full of flowery but meaningless gobbly-gook, for Obama? What accomplishments can you point to?

Leefeller:  “I’ve explained many times what accomplishments Obama has made, and, quite frankly, I’m really tired of repeating them to people who don’t listen.”

A good teacher knows that every student, but especially slow students, need to hear or be exposed to a new concept no less than 10 times to remember them, often more. If Sue and I or VOT and I cannot remember Obama’s accomplishments (and we are activists, not average voters) it is as if they have not been given to us.

You may be tired of repeating them, but somebody better repeat them because in the resulting silence the right wing noise machine will be heard loud and often and that will fill in the blanks for Obama. And as someone pointed out here on TD, the noise machine has already begun in NC by the Republican Party.

I don’t recall that you ever cited actual accomplishments. What I remember is you giving me a resume.  You told me that he was a community organizer, yet you never pointed specifically to any actual accomplishment, any changed condition in the community. I am doing this from memory so I may be wrong, but I think only one bill he sponsored in the U. S. Senate was enacted into law. I can’t remember anything he did in the IL Senate.

And again, Leefeller, I am in that minority of about 30% of the activist base. If I can’t remember these accomplishments the average voter won’t.

See my response in the my next response to Aegrus for some real specifics.

And by the way, Leefeler. I have pointed these things out here at TD before. But I don’t mind repeating them over and over and over and will be happy to do so as often as it takes.  I don’t mind or get tired of, “ repeating them to people who don’t listen.”

Recent events have shown that the Republican attack machine is going to scare everyone who will believe it, that Barack Obama is too radical, when in fact he is just moderately liberal. Team Clinton loves the adds that will run soon in North Carolina, where the Rev. Jeremiah Wright video is trotted out like the ghost of Willie Horton. Of course John McCain has said to not run the ad (wink wink) which has already been shown on MSNBC. Mrs. Clinton in her zeal to win goes right along with this. Make no mistake: the republicans are afraid of the black man from Illinois. That’s why they want the pant suit opponent.

Cyrena, we exist in very dangerous times. The voices of sanity and reason have been cast aside by those who think that political expediency is job one, now and forever. Think of it: Senator Obama who at best, is simply a moderate, is portrayed as radical. Radical? As a continual advocate for peace and justice, I am considered a radical. Senator Obama has no problem with keeping the draconian drug laws in place, nor does he have a problem with telling AIPAC that Iran is a threat to this nation. Just look how far this agenda has hijacked the conversation to the point that destroying constitutional rights is considered just fine.

It tells us that Hillary (bush lite) could actually be far more dangerous than Bush because she’s 100% smarter than him, and doesn’t need a Dick Cheney to work her strings.

Bush lite now maybe, but let her get her hands on the keys to the castle, and we’re in for worse times than we’ve yet to be able to imagine.

Remember this from 8 years ago, (even though very few paid any attention) George Bush is dangerous because he’s stupid, and Dick Cheney is more dangerous because he’s not.

Now...imagine them combined into one.

I rest my case.

We don’t need a Kennedy, a Stevenson, a Nixon, an Ike, or a Reagan.  We need an American Gorbachev...but we aren’t going to get one.

EJ, you are ignoring the obvious racial overtones of Clinton’s win in Pennsylvania. Exit polls do tell us something about this.

I am tired of being cheated by inane choices, people casting their votes for people like Bush. I am tired of fear and loathing prompting important decisions. Because of this vote for Bush, millions of us are still putting up with his incompetence, with his corruption, with his self-delusion.

The man who should be the next president happens to be black. I do wonder if our country is ready to elect a black man president, even someone with Obama’s intelligence, charisma, and principle. This is relatively speaking, of course.

This question is not important to Republicans. Ever self-centered and Machiavellian, they would much rather see Hillary running against them, thus being able to elect Bush III. Unfortunately Hillary is proving herself to be more like Bush Lite.

What does this tell you?

Aww..c’mon Cyrena, I like(d) you.

I always thought you posted pretty reasonable posts, (your opinions),and, although long-winded at times. (some people like to stay stuff just for the sake of saying it.)

I never wore a corset, and I don’t go through 1-can of hair “spay” spray in a month’s time.

I’m not shallow. And I don’t feel the need to explain my posts to anyone as they are my opinions. (but, I will if it’s absolutely necessary and leads to fun, harmless dialog.)

I certainly didn’t post anything that offended you personally, so I’m confused by the “attack” tactics you used against me?

I “hope” you will consider playing intelligent, but nice in the future, but the “odds” of that after your negative post against me are high?

Take care, Cyrena.

I am reminded of something Michael Moore said recently, about being more interested in Obama the movement, than Obama the man. Hey. despite numerous flaws, the community organizer is trying to tell us something.

bert and voice, please take your head out of your back ends because I’ve explained many times what accomplishments Obama has made, and, quite frankly, I’m really tired of repeating them to people who don’t listen.

Continue your ideological, talking-point, narrow-minded gotcha politics dedicated to the mainstream media’s worship of money. You’re the problem with America. A problem, I’m happy to say, which will be overcome by truth and perseverance.

Okay “voice of truth”, I can’t resist. What do you consider “financially sucessful”?  ....LOL

According to other posts here at Truthdig you have a wife and (if I remember correctly) four children.  Of course, your wife doesn’t speak for herself, I remember now...YOU speak for her.  That is sweet, I’m certain she appreciates that.  It’s really “noble” of you.  That’s what all “real” men/husbands do.  You betcha.

The more I think about it, the more intoxicating the effect.  Imagine.. never having to speak for yourself.  Do you just “rip someone a new a**hole if she tells you to?  If she needs someone “set straight” do you just “take care of that”?  Wow… I really need a man like that..  Shit, truthfully, that’d be great fun.  Especially, if I were in a cranky mood.  Someone like you would sure come in handy. (Get ‘em Tiger...Grrrr)

It’s how all “real” men are, right?  No wossie stuff.  Are you voting for McCain?  “Real” men vote McCain, why..everyone knows that.

Nope...Superficial Sue Cook can’t explain what makes a good president, nor does she have a ‘case’ or an argument.

I mean, come on...with rhetoric like this?

“...His arguments against Hillary and John McCain are silly. They are just words until he can claim the time and experience earned to run for the highest office in the land.

Hope is also shallow word against such large odds.”

Apparently she meant to say that “Hope is A shallow word..blah, blah, blah.

So, against WHAT such ‘large odds’?

See what I mean? Some people just like to say stuff just for the sake of saying it. There’s no MEANING to such a statement.

And when she isn’t saying stupid stuff like this, she’s complaining about Michael Moore’s ‘APPEARANCE’!!

Yep, that’s just how SHALLOW Sue Cook is. Hard to imagine she’d ever come up with an original thought of her own...figured that out a long time ago.

So, I wonder what she thinks Michael Moore should do about his ‘appearance’ since she hasn’t a clue to what would make a good president?

She didn’t mention what was ‘wrong’ with Michael Moore’s ‘appearance’, and I’d bet she couldn’t tell us without giving away that she wears a full body corset around the clock, and goes through a case of hair spay every week.

So, the only really large odds are that Superficial Sue could ever come up with an original thought.

Aegrus certainly expressed my sentiments well.
We have the opportunity to elect a man pledged to
mending the domestic rifts that divide us.  Obama
is frank about the need for consultation and compromise.
Washington has too long ignored the needs of our nation and appealed to
the baser visceral instincts of the Heartland voters.
This time we must not be deceived.  It is time for a fresh face.  It is time for a president who will listen to the nays of experienced advisers rather than let a VP filter his/her information and ignore data.  It is time for a leader who respects our allies and understands the Third World.  It is time for a POTUS worthy of a Rushmore carving; and one of those guys was named Abraham from Illinois with a pretty slim resume going into the office of power.

Great comeback vot. I was going to say/ask pretty much the same thing.

Who said you should ‘give more’? Who said there was anything wrong with working harder and earing more?

It would appear that thou doest protest too much.

I never asked you about your charity work or any of the rest of this. And, I know a whole bunch of Americans who are working harder and earning LESS, and even more who WISH they could work, except that there isn’t any work.

No, I was just wondering why you were bullying the people who choose to select Obama as president, and claiming that if we did, we would only have change in our pockets, (which is actually more than many have NOW). I couldn’t understand why you cared at all, since you said you have lots of money.

As for the charities, I’m sure it would probably escape your arrogance, but the people I know who are without money aren’t likely to accept any ‘charity’ from the likes of people like you.

So...keep your money for your kids and all. Don’t worry about taking on the responsibilities of any more families. Better to just leave and keep your money in the family.

makes the entire premise of this essay Absurd.

Hey, it’s my money and I’d like to see my family get some of it before I take on the burden of three other families or more.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with working harder and earning more.  It really isn’t a vice.

And I probably spend more time and money than most folks on this site working with local charities, so don’t give me the “give more” crap.

So, VOT, why are you so worried? I mean, if you’re such a financially sucessful repuglican, why do you care?

Could it be that your financial success just won’t be enough?

Maybe you should join the rest of your financially successful sisters and brothers in Dubai. Maybe your money will actually spend there.

Change for the sake of change is simply ignorant and irresponsible.

If you vote for Obama, you better like change, because that is all that will be left in your pockets.  Actually, make that my pocket, since I am financially successful.  The rest of you are Democrats.

Name one.

What is a Regestered Democrat??  Is it like a Registered Democrat, a Regurgitated Democrat, or a Typical Democrat (i.e., I don’t feel like learning, I’ll just have the guvmint take someone else’s money and give it to me)?

Every since her senate run he Hillary has been running for president, instead of learning how to be a good president.
It would be better, getting her hands dirty, she is creating big waves before maybe after her time and she is just an empty suit giving silly arguments.

Well Sue Cook you have really stated your case, can you explain what makes a good president, since it is your argument?  You got your names mixed up.

No

Lets try to take the parallel to a different level.  Which John McCain will the public see? 

Will it be Bob Dole...injured war hero with a long history in the senate, 73 years old, war hawk but quite dull as a public speaker. Or will it be Richard Nixon...a deft manipulator of words, often combatitive, sometimes overzealous, but with an already-proven ability to shrug off scandal (that eventually caught up with him).

Yes, I agree with you.

Obama has spent more time running for president, (ever since is senate run) than actually learning how to be a good president.

He talks a good speech and does good in front of thousands (and teleprompters), but put him one on one with tough questions (especially those uncomfortable to him), and like the Wednesday night debate that’s what you get.

Hardly presidential.
Experience does matter. (learning = experience.)

He should have finished out his senate term (like he promised his constituents he would), mature.

Build on a better voting record (not “present")

I have no doubt that someday down the road after getting his hands actually dirty that he will make a great president.

Right now he’s just a rookie wanting to create big waves before his time.

He’s accused of being an “empty suit” for a reason.
He hasn’t done anything significantly to be vetted for.

His arguments against Hillary and John McCain are silly. They are just words until he can claim the time and experience earned to run for the highest office in the land.

Hope is also shallow word against such large odds.

TDoff, I think I get your point here:

• “A major hurdle Obama will have to overcome in the general election, is the voter’s reaction to the recent revelation of Obama’s plan for his first 100 days in office. In this plan, Obama intends to:
“
BUT…I would question the semantics. I agree that Obama has to present a plan for his first 100 days. BUT, how do we see it as a ‘major hurdle’ for him to overcome against the presumptive nominee that is John McCain, in the general election?

I mean surely the voter’s reaction to such a plan by Obama vs one from McCain, is already pretty much established. (I would think) In short, war mongers and other voters still committed to the imperial view that the US should own and control the globe, are gonna vote for John McCain, no matter what Barack Obama comes up with. (same with die-hard racists).

On the other hand, voters who are clearly sick of the war, and politics as usual, may look very carefully at whatever plan he presents, (and I would hope that they would) but at the end of the day, if they don’t like elements of the plan, (or maybe I should say if Obama isn’t able to EXPLAIN THE REASONING behind his plan) what alternatives are there? John McCain?

Still, I do get your point, but I think the main challenge is for Obama to have the time and the talent to make clear the foundation or the mechanics of WHY he makes the choices/decisions/plans that he considers, because that’s what all politicians should do, and generally fail to do. He’s done a far better job than others, which is what has gotten him this far.

In other words, Americans don’t like to be talked down to, or left in the dark, or left to feel that we have no input in the decisions that affect our lives. There are always going to be decisions/choices/etc that don’t sit well with everyone. That’s just the way of the world. BUT, if ‘we the people’ at least UNDERSTAND the rationale behind many or most of those decisions, THAT is what makes the difference.

Aegrus certainly re-stated, (and most clearly) the whole concept that we need to all ‘get’ which is the fact that no ONE person or leader, (or even these so-called “reps” as designated by Congress) can manage the entire operation. That can only be accomplished on the one end…the Government’s end, by the President selecting excellent advisors, and making the right decisions based on that advice and his own good judgment. On the other end, it has to be US. We have to make it very clear what WE want and expect, and as it happens, Obama is the first politician to come along in some decades, who has made it clear that he will respond to that.

Meantime, EJ is stuck in the same either or mentality that drags down the whole operation, because NOTHING about a political or social system is EVER ‘either/or’, and Obama cannot and should not be ‘compared’ with any other leaders because he is himself, and his leadership will be formed by the focuses of who and what we all are, as a nation, at the end of this first decade of the 21st Century.
Making these sorts of comparisons is annoying, just as it is when parents argue and/or otherwise try to claim ‘bragging rights’ by claiming that a kid looks or acts just like their mother, or their father, or a grandparent, etc. No they don’t..they look and act and think and feel like THEMSELVES!

What EJ sees as an adherence to ‘form’ in ‘one’ of his Obama’s not that. It’s just a valuable part of a person that can do more than one thing at a time, and is cautious and pragmatic. Some could (and have) argue(d) that he’s TOO cautious, but I’d damn sure prefer that over the radical actions that have brought us to our collective needs over the past 8 years, as victims of a radical tyranny.

It never hurts to LOOK before we LEAP, and to consider the consequences of actions BEFORE we do them.

Lee, if you actually did any research, you would know exactly what “substantive contributions” Obama has accomplished. Please don’t ask questions intending to discredit a candidate when you haven’t even done your homework.

First of all, I don’t compare Obama to JFK, or Stevenson, except for maybe the charisma factor. Other than that, what actual substantive contributions has he really ever made? He did virtually nothing in the senate. He gives good speeches, but if ... and I say if he won the general election, and he actually had to confront all the challenges of today’s presidency, then we would see if he is anything more than an attractive facade.

Just once I would like to see an article from E. J. Dionne that deals with one or more of the serious substantive issues facing this nation and a discussion of this political contest within the context of those issues.  Alas, it appears that media pundits like E.J. are so devoid of substance, he wouldn’t know where to begin even if he wanted to.

I fear that we miss the question, JFK was an entire different generation and style of leader, would have been an even greater leader if not cut down mid term. RFK, however, would have been a great president, an agent of change cut down during a time of crisis and change.  Obama much more closely resembles RFK as does the challange of our political situation.  America will choose this time by ballot box not bullet, to change and grow or dig in and resist change.  Obama, win or lose will impact history much more than either Hillary or McCain.  We need change, Go Obama.

Hope, and Change offered by Obama, his vision or at least the one he speaks of is a nice one if you ask me, of course the follow through will be the proof in the pudding.  If Obama wins the GE, and is in office as our president, he may start out with good intentions, but if he can persist in what he speaks of against the tide of corruption that is Washington, it will be interesting to see what really happens.

Of the residue candidates, we know what will happen.

Good post Aegrus, kick the bums out!

“Seen by Obama’s critics, this is a discourse about process rather than problems. It seems to highlight procedural reform, not the delivery of concrete benefits to people who need them. But his enthusiasts see his words as those of the only candidate who can break with Washington’s bad habits, its bitter partisan polarization and the nation’s festering divisions, particularly those around race and class.”

Well, this has always been the issue, EJ. There are folks in America who want to elect a representative to fix all of their problems, and there are those who want themselves to directly influence on their government to change. The former is short-sighted as far as my opinion is concerned.

Barack Obama is doing so well because people want to be heard by their government and not have representatives diddle around in Washington in our name. This is what is happening today, and I don’t believe representatives are held accountable anymore. 

This campaign does have some root in real issues like the Iraq OCCUPATION, and health care, economy, energy cost, et cetera. Still, anyone who thinks ONE politician can resolve these issues without the direct influence of the people for such resolution is foolish. We have decades of evidence to the contrary, so let’s stop treating Senators, Congressmen and Presidents with such esteem as to proclaim it is they who are responsible when the good and bad happen.

We are the ones who must decide. Our representatives in Washington should represent Americans. What seems to happen now is the people elect a president or some other rep, and when nothing gets done people roll their eyes and say, “Oh well, that’s just politics. They’ll do whatever they want anyway.” When the betrayal and treason of such behavior should never go unpunished. Why do incumbents have so much power to stay in office for decades regardless of what they have done for the people? It’s because you, I and the person across the street have been tricked into a jaded sense of, “Well, everything eventually works out, so I don’t care.” and now we are seeing what happens when a president is given ample opportunity to “work everything out.”

Pay attention, people. Wake UP! Desire change always! Desire candidates who want to enable you to have an effect again on our democratic-republic! Geez!

A major hurdle Obama will have to overcome in the general election, is the voter’s reaction to the recent revelation of Obama’s plan for his first 100 days in office. In this plan, Obama intends to:

1. Bring all troops home from Iraq immediately, discharge all the caucasian troops, and grant them one-year R&R;assignments to the ‘resort camps’ Halliburton has been building in the Southwest deserts.

2. Double the pay of the remaining minority troops, and assign them all to brder patrol duty, to expedite the influx of illegal aliens, and temporarily prevent caucasians from fleeing.

3. Bring all mercenary troops home from all foreign locations, put the black man formerly known as Prince in charge of Blackwater, and have Blackwater identify all civilian caucasians and caucasian-sympathizers, redact their citizenship, and extradite them to whatever nations will accept them.

4. ‘Change, change will be the keyword of my administration’, Obama proclaimed, ‘And first it will be necessary to change the whole complexion of the nation and it’s policies’.

Poor deluded confused EJ.The fact that Obama combines JFK and Stevenson is exactly why he is deatined for greatness.Bill Clinton combined corn pone dialect and a razor sharp mind into two terms of successful presidency.To get elected you must sound like a moron.To run the country and be effective as a world leader you must have a first class intellect.Unfortunately both to get elected and our face to the world George W Bush is a moron on both counts.My point is that what you EJ see as weakness I see as strength.The charisma of JFK and the intellect of Adlai Stevenson.Not a bad combination.